Google's AI made up a fake cheese fact that wound up in an ad for Google's AI, perfectly highlighting why relying on AI is a bad idea
-
-
They should have kept quiet and let Google show how shit they are on live TV
-
-
-
-
Yeah, for some reason I was thinking you were trying to say that bolting on widgets made it no longer a search engine.
-
-
Verified -
Fire burns and smoke asphyxiates, highlighting why relying on fire is a bad idea.
-
LLMs are good for some searches or clarification that the original website doesn't say. Ex the "BY" attribute in creative commons being acronymed to "BY" (by John Doe) and not "AT" (attributed to John Doe)
-
-
-
That is an extremely apt parallel!
(I'm stealing it)
-
I made a smartass comment earlier comparing AI to fire, but it's really my favorite metaphor for it - and it extends to this issue. Depending on how you define it, fire seems to meet the requirements for being alive. It tends to come up in the same conversations that question whether a virus is alive. I think it's fair to think of LLMs (particularly the current implementations) as intelligent - just in the same way we think of fire or a virus as alive. Having many of the characteristics of it, but being a step removed.
-
Altavista was the shit when it came out. My classmates and friends were surprised at how quick I was getting answers or general information. Altavista, that's it. If you're using Ask Jeeves you're going to have a hard time.
I can't remember how I found out about it, but it's what I used until Google came out.
-
This article is about Gemini, not GPT. The generic term is LLM: Large Language Model.
-
How is it not AI? Just because it's not AGI doesn't mean it's not AI.
-
I totally get all the concerns related to AI. However, the bandwagon of: "look it made a mistake, it's useless!" is a bit silly.
First of all, AI is constantly improving. Remember everyone laughing at AI's mangled fingers? Well, that has been fixed some time ago. Now pictures of people are pretty much indistinguishable from real ones.
Second, people also make critical mistakes, plenty at that. The question is not whether AI can be absolutely accurate. The question is whether AI can make on average fewer mistakes than human.
I hate the idea of AI replacing everything and everyone. However, pretending that AI will not be eventually faster, better, cheeper and more accurate that most humans is wishful thinking. I honestly think that our only hope is legislation, not the desperate wish that AI will always need human supervision and input to be correct.
-
-
the whole phrase is now misused
